<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11-Nov-17 1:56 AM, Gervase Markham
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:265d78fd-dd2b-ccc5-5f3a-f049f6dbf8e2@mozilla.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 09/11/17 22:01, Goverenance TB wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In this message we are looking for your feedback on the 2018 election
process, namely nominating and voting for council members. Feedback
will be reviewed by the council, the results summarized back to the
community and used by the Thunderbird Council to inform the process to
be used in the 2018 election.Please send feedback (idea or concern) with
subject "Thunderbird Governance 2018 - Council Elections" (the subject
of this email) to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@thunderbird.net">governance@thunderbird.net</a>, *NOT tb-planning*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I think it should be acceptable, if people choose, for them to share
their feedback in a public forum also so a discussion can develop.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I think that the involvement of a voting public is a great idea, but
I have concerns this mailing list is not the way to go, or
representative of anything more than a small group who managed to
jump the hurdles of an obscure Mozilla mailing list subscription.
This mailing list is being repeatedly held up as representative of
the core Thunderbird people, but who is actually on this list and
by what right should they be empowered to decide who is on the
council. I do not know those answers, but I think the questions
need to be answered. Sure it was a convenient starting point three
plus years ago.<br>
<br>
Lets talk about either contributors (Current, not a patch or a
support issue 12 months ago or updating a single word in a support
document), or the paying public as the appropriate voting group or a
combination of both.<br>
<br>
There is a substantial mailing list of financial contributors. Why
is it not a better "list" of those eligible for a vote? Now the
paying public would leave me without a vote. I strongly suspect I
would not be alone from the members of this list in that, but if I
were inclined a small cash donation would make me "financial" and
eligible. Why raise this? because I think as a responsive product
we need to actually consider the wants of those actually paying the
bills. <br>
<br>
Do they want to vote? Should they be encouraged to support a "users
representative" or two on the council? Should the council actually
be a group who represents the wants hopes and aspirations of
differing parts of the project.<br>
<br>
I would think a process similar to the one used by the Mozilla
Foundation to replace their board members might be more appropriate
really. Otherwise I suggest that we actually advertise this mailing
list to our users as a place to get a say in the future of the
project if they wish to vote in future council elections. After
all, finding this list is quite difficult, almost as difficult as
finding a web page with list the current members of the council and
their contact information. <br>
<br>
One of the frustrations of the current arrangements is that the
makeup of the council and the process by which they get there is not
easily locatable. Unless you are in the "know". We need to do much
better in advertising the council and the living breathing existence
of Thunderbird as a "non" Mozilla product. If we want to bring in
outside people to the council great, let them join in the process,
but lets make the process very public so they can.<br>
<br>
Matt.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>